Request to Show Net P&L Including All Charges

Feature Requests
1

Hello Team, @Nisshant_Vernekar @Jeet_A

Please consider showing Net P&L after including brokerage, government charges, and slippage. The current P&L does not account for these costs, which makes the historical performance appear better than the actual results users can achieve in live trading.

For example, I deployed an algo 3 days ago. My actual net profit was around ₹50,000, while the platform showed approximately ₹60,000 for the same period—a difference of ₹10,000 in just 3 days. If such a gap exists over a short period, then many of the past profitable months shown on the platform could potentially be much less profitable or even loss-making after considering all costs.

If the concern is that slippage varies across users, you can use standard assumptions. Government charges are fixed, brokerage can be assumed at ₹20 per order, and a reasonable slippage estimate of 2–3% can be considered. Even approximate Net P&L would be far more realistic and useful than the current figures.

I request that Net P&L be displayed as soon as possible so users can make decisions based on realistic performance data.

Thank you.

1 Like
2

Thanks for raising this, we are working on this actively. Firstly we will start showing the brokerage and government charges adjusted returns on algo level and then we will also show it to you in your own past performance with the algo

1 Like
3

Thanks for the update, sir. @Gaurav_Sangle @jay.gori

I would like to make one important request and ask one question.

My request is that slippage adjustment should be given the highest priority while implementing Net P&L.

In my experience, slippage is by far the biggest reason for the difference between algo P&L and actual net P&L. The ₹10,000 difference that I mentioned earlier is a good example. Out of that, nearly ₹9,000 came from slippage, while brokerage and government charges contributed only around ₹1,000.

Because of this, I believe that adjusting P&L only for brokerage and government charges will not make the displayed performance significantly more realistic. Even if exact user-wise slippage cannot be calculated, a standard assumption of 3% slippage on both the entry price and exit price can be used to provide a much more realistic estimate of net returns.

Therefore, I would request the team to focus more on incorporating the impact of slippage, as that is where the majority of the real-world difference comes from. Without slippage adjustment, the Net P&L feature will not reflect actual trading performance accurately.

My question is: by when can we expect this feature to go live?

I have often seen responses saying that a feature is being actively worked on, but even after 6–12 months, that feature is still not available in the app, and sometimes it never gets implemented at all. Since this is one of the most important improvements for evaluating algo performance, I hope it can be launched by the end of June if development is already underway.

Thank you.

4

Hi @Manish_Ahuja, thank you for sharing such detailed feedback.

We completely understand your point regarding slippage and its impact on actual realised P&L. Slippage is indeed an important factor in live Algo execution; however, it is also an inherent part of market execution and depends on multiple factors such as the instrument being traded, liquidity, market volatility, order type, and prevailing market conditions.

Since slippage can vary from user to user and can be both positive and negative, applying a fixed standardisation may not always represent the actual execution experience of every user.

That said, if slippage is your key concern, Stratzy already provides users the flexibility to select slippage tolerance between -10% to +10% for LIMIT orders. You can set this to 0, which means your orders will be placed at the same price at which the Algo generates the signal.

However, please note that setting a lower slippage tolerance also increases the possibility of LIMIT orders remaining pending or not getting filled, especially during fast-moving market conditions.

Regarding the feature request, we genuinely appreciate your feedback. We receive suggestions from users across different areas, and we maintain a record of all such inputs. These requests are reviewed as part of our product improvement process and prioritised based on multiple factors, including user demand, impact, and overall value addition.

While a particular feature may feel highly important from an individual user perspective, we have to evaluate requests at a broader platform level to ensure maximum benefit for the entire user base. Many of our previous platform upgrades have been driven by similar user feedback.

We truly appreciate your suggestion and the detailed explanation you have shared. Feedback like this helps us continue improving the platform experience.

5

@jay.gori maybe you can provide a toggle like 1%,2%,3% etc for slippage, so that users can understand better

6

Sure @Avinash

Thanks for the suggestion and input. We will consider whether any such optimisation can be made LIVE.

2 Likes
8

Is it possible that, among all users of the trading algorithm, the highest entry price received by any user is considered the algorithm’s entry price, and the lowest exit price received by any user is considered the algorithm’s exit price? This way, if the algorithm shows a certain profit, we can be assured of earning at least that much profit.

This would make the algorithm’s past months’ P&L much more realistic for us, which is currently not the case at all.

9

Hi @Manish_Ahuja

Appreciate your suggestion and feedback. We will evaluate the feasibility of implementing such an optimisation LIVE.

10

Hi @jay.gori, it’s been around 10 days since your response. Is there any update on the feasibility of this feature? I believe showing a conservative (worst-case) Net P&L based on the highest entry and lowest exit among users would make the historical performance much more realistic and trustworthy. Looking forward to your update. Thanks!

11

Hi @Manish_Ahuja

Thank you for following up.

We do take every feature request and feedback shared by our users seriously, and your suggestion has been noted with the team. However, I’d like to clarify that while we review every request, not all of them are taken up for implementation.

Features are prioritised based on multiple factors, such as the overall value they bring to the platform, the number of users requesting them, technical feasibility, and their impact on the overall user experience.

At the moment, I don’t have an update or timeline to share regarding this particular suggestion. If there is any progress or if we decide to take it up in a future release, we’ll be sure to communicate it through our community announcements.

We genuinely appreciate you taking the time to share your feedback. Inputs like these help us evaluate improvements and shape the platform over time.

12

Hi @jay.gori

Thank you for your response.

I have one humble question. What feature could be more important than displaying a realistic Net P&L? Since Stratzy is a platform built around historical performance and transparency, I believe this is one of the most critical features for both the platform and its users.

If possible, could you please share even one feature that you believe delivers more value to users than showing a conservative (worst-case) Net P&L?

I sincerely request you to consider giving this feature the highest priority. In a single trade, I often experience slippage of ₹4,000–₹5,000 compared to the displayed historical results. This creates a significant gap between expected and actual performance and can reduce users’ trust in the platform.

My intention is not to criticize Stratzy. I genuinely like the platform and want to see it grow. However, if historical performance continues to ignore realistic execution and slippage, some users may eventually stop relying on it. I would hate to see such a great platform lose user confidence over an issue that is fundamental and, in my opinion, essential to address.

I hope the team will consider implementing this feature as soon as possible. Thank you.

1 Like
13

this will be the better option than yours

14

Hi @Manish_Ahuja and @Avinash

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I completely understand why you would like to see historical performance represented in a more conservative manner.

As shared earlier, your suggestion has been noted and reviewed by the team. Product enhancements are prioritised based on multiple factors, including the value they bring to the overall platform, technical feasibility, and feedback received from across our user base.

At this point, I don’t have any further update to share regarding this request. If we decide to take it forward in a future release, we’ll communicate it through our official announcements.

We genuinely appreciate you taking the time to share your feedback.